COA Upholds Prop 22; Should Other Industries Follow?

Happy Monday, dear readers!

Your humble blogger homes you are staying dry and not being blown away by the crazy winds.  It can be dangerous driving in these stormy conditions, especially when you are busy reading these blog posts or thinking of new ways to deny benefits.  Accordingly, you might consider taking an Uber or Lyft to get from point “A” to point “your claim is denied.”

Speaking of… have you heard the good news out of the California Court of Appeal?  In a published decision in the case of Castellanosi v. State of California, the majority panel declined to strike down Proposition 22 as unconstitutional.  Remember Proposition 22?  It was the ballot initiative that effectively excluded various gig economy entities from the ravages of AB-5.  In short, it allowed for the preservation of the “independent contractor” relationship rather than the effective presumption of employment brought about by AB-5. 

With Prop 22 in effect, individuals who choose to use software provided by such companies to engage in gig work would not be entitled to status as “employees” and remain independent contractors. 

Well, several of these individuals unhappy with the option of simply not engaging in an agreement to such terms decided to sue, and a Superior Court ruled that Proposition 22 was unconstitutional.  That ruling was met with an appeal and now we see Prop 22 survives to fight another day.

Likely this will go to the California Supreme Court, but let’s toy with the idea for a second that the Supreme Court affirms and, by initiative, California’s can carve out exemptions to the heavy presumption of employment vs. independent contractor status.  Can the results be replicated in other areas of California’s industry?

For example, could a coalition form of various somewhat related industries to exempt their respective employees in the same way?  What if enough restaurant groups cobbled together a bill allowing workers to “opt out” of employment for some higher salary?  If a waiter if offered minimum wage plus tips as an employee or $5 per hour above minimum wage to “opt out” and buy his or her own insurance for health and disability, would any waiters take the deal?

Depending on the ultimate fate of Prop 22, perhaps this is a model for California’s long besieged employers to escape the invariably expensive and borderline punitive workers’ compensation system.

Now, you might be thinking “humble blogger, you handsome devil, are you talking yourself out of a job?”  Well, not necessarily.  Work will continue to get done.  Injuries will continue to happen.  Fraud will continue to abound.  If more industries took the Proposition 22 route, coverage for these injuries will continue, but the policy holders could very well become the independent contractors rather than the employers.  It’s a crazy new world your humble blogger is imagining, but not one entirely different than the one we know now.

What do you think, dear readers?  Will more industries push through initiatives to carve out an escape from workers’ comp?  Or is this Prop 22 to be a stand-alone-Stan for the gig economy?

AB-5 Claims Another Victim: Truck Drivers

Happy Monday, dear readers!  Your humble blogger hopes your summer is moving along swimmingly and that good weather and good times litter your every evening and weekend.

But, and it brings me no pleasure to do so, I have bad news to deliver!  California’s AB-5, which seeks to force every Californian into either being an employee or an employer, often against the will of all those involved, has claimed yet another victim.

Back in January of 2020 (remember those days, dear readers?  That’s when Corona was a beer and remote working was how quickly you paused the movie when someone called for a bathroom break) your humble blogger reported that a Los Angeles Judge ruled that AB-5 was pre-empted by federal law in so much as it sought to destroy the owner-operator truck drivers of California. 

Truck drivers protested AB-5 heavily when it was first passed into law, including by circling around down town San Francisco blaring their horns repeatedly.

Well, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had lifted the injunction against enforcement of AB-5 as to truck drivers, and at the end of June the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the California Trucking Association’s appeal, meaning that the injunction is now lifted.

The final result for California?  It appears that truck drivers will likely be able to proceed as employees, including in term of workers’ compensation.  Those that previously engaged their services will have to act accordingly to the increased risk and raise their prices accordingly as well.

Just to put this all into context for my beloved readers: the Legislature in Sacramento was on a witch hunt against UBER and Lyft and decided to go on a thoughtless rampage, crushing various industries and people in the process.  Independent truck driver/operators were NOT victims of some evil plot to exploit them, and often found themselves willing to volunteer time to protest and money to litigate to protect their livelihoods.  It is entirely unclear who the Legislature sought to protect in having AB-5 expand to countless industries, including trucking!

Besides the damage done to independent truck drivers, the damage will be felt by the rest of us for many years to come.  Although your humble blogger loves shopping at Whole Foods, for example, I am well aware that there is no farm on the roof of every Whole Foods location: food is brought in, almost always by truck.  California’s AB-5 has made delivering products from farm to shelf MORE expensive, and that expense will be paid on every grocery store shelf. 

Your humble blogger wishes and hopes and prays that sanity will return to Sacramento.  Of course, your humble blogger has also seen Smokey and the Bandit II and is well aware what happens to those that use laws to incur the wrath of truck drivers…